Debate about Debates

[Mojlnir]

I agree with White Wolf and Darnoc. Debating is the free and open exchange of ideas and concepts in order to gain a better sense of what one believes in. The purpose, contrary to the opinions of some, is not to destroy ones opponent. That proves nothing other than a person's abilitiy to use sarcasm to fluster an opponent and make them feel foolish. Nothing, save for pathetic ego boosting, is gained from such exchanges.

 

If, for example, a debate over the number of electrons possessed by an atom of oxygen should arise there is clearly a right and a wrong answer. If the debate is political, religious or otherwise existential in nature it is safe to assume that there will be no consensus as to what is right or wrong.

 

Debate is a forum in which to match wits yes, but also a forum in which to gain from others and the sharpen your understanding of the position you occupy. It's not unlike teaching in that you learn something each day by being subjected to the critiques and questions of those who either know less about the subject than you or disagree with you absolutely.

 

Oftentimes debates are driven by ideology and conviction which tends to result in a fairly low rate of conversion. Winning a debate should be a distantly secondary goal. Striving to learning something new, even if it makes you rabid with anger, should be goal one.

 

-M

[Peregrine]

That proves nothing other than a person's abilitiy to use sarcasm to fluster an opponent and make them feel foolish. Nothing, save for pathetic ego boosting, is gained from such exchanges.

 

Actually, a lot is gained. The target of the destruction is a distant secondary concern to the undecided observers. I don't care even slightly if my opponent accepts they were wrong, as long as their side's flaws are made blindingly obvious to the rest of the world.

 

If, for example, a debate over the number of electrons possessed by an atom of oxygen should arise there is clearly a right and a wrong answer. If the debate is political, religious or otherwise existential in nature it is safe to assume that there will be no consensus as to what is right or wrong.

 

Textbook golden mean fallacy. Actually, there is significantly less proof that the earth isn't flat than there is of evolution. I can present solid proof against the Earth is Round Theory, which is infinitely more than can be found against evolution. But people still insist on claiming that evolution is false, and that a debate exists. There is no consensus, but that has nothing to do with whether there's a right answer.

 

Religion is no different. Like it or not, a right answer exists and all other answers are wrong. If a god exists, one exists and all arguments otherwise are wrong. If there isn't a god, there isn't a god and religion is wrong no matter how stubbornly they insist on believing. The refusal of one side to follow rules of objective and factual debate does not mean they aren't wrong.

 

And in some cases, politics can be a simple right/wrong question. I've seen countless politcal positions based on false "facts". if someone claims "the assault weapons ban was a good idea, because it was effective at stopping crime" and I prove them wrong with the real statistics, the debate is over. Prove the facts wrong and you prove the position wrong. Or at least that its holder is irrational and taking positions that have no connection to reality. Simply saying "it's politics" does not make all sides valid.

 

Lack of consensus means less than nothing. If in your atom example, one side refused to agree on the number claimed by the other, that just means that side is a group of stubborn idiots. Other subjects are no different.

[Mojlnir]

Actually, a lot is gained. The target of the destruction is a distant secondary concern to the undecided observers. I don't care even slightly if my opponent accepts they were wrong, as long as their side's flaws are made blindingly obvious to the rest of the world.

 

THe objective of simply crushing ones opponent is short sighted and contrary to the spirit of debate. Proving someone wrong in such a manner as to induce shame or anger is nothing other than juvenile chest pounding. Humiliation is not the goal.

 

Textbook golden mean fallacy.

 

Nope. My example was not seeking to accept the best possible compromise between to competing positions, rather to argue that there is in fact right and wrong.

 

Religion is no different. Like it or not, a right answer exists and all other answers are wrong.

 

Nope again. This is a classic example of the "argument of logic" fallacy. It cannot simply be assumed that because an argument for a position is false that the position itself is therefore fallacious.

[Peregrine]

THe objective of simply crushing ones opponent is short sighted and contrary to the spirit of debate. Proving someone wrong in such a manner as to induce shame or anger is nothing other than juvenile chest pounding. Humiliation is not the goal.

 

It's not to produce shame or anger. The goal is not just to prove them wrong, but to completely shatter their arguments and so completely discredit them to the rest of the world that nobody will believe them. So yes, humiliation is the goal, but only as a means to an end elsewhere.

 

And I'll add that this only applies to factual debates where one side is wrong. The "debate" over evolution is a perfect example. In that "debate", I want it made clear just how ignorant and/or deceptive the other side is being. If they make false claims, I want there to be zero chance of any observer actually taking them seirously.

 

Or, to give another example, the recently-expired assault weapons ban. All of the arguments in favor of it were based on either distortion of the truth or simple lies. But they were lies that people could easily believe, because they sounded good. In that case, complete destruction of the opponents is necessary, to keep them from manipulating people into a position they would not support if they knew the truth.

 

Nope. My example was not seeking to accept the best possible compromise between to competing positions, rather to argue that there is in fact right and wrong.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying there. It sounded a lot like an argument Dark0ne made (which was exactly the fallacy I claimed) that nobody in a religion debate is right, and that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Your statement about consensus sounded like you were claiming that a lack of consensus has any relevance to the issue of right/wrong.

 

 

Nope again. This is a classic example of the "argument of logic" fallacy. It cannot simply be assumed that because an argument for a position is false that the position itself is therefore fallacious.

 

I never said that all arguments for religion are fallacious, although a lot of them are. My point there was that consensus is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. People are sometimes stubborn and will refuse to concede, even when presented with overwhelming evidence. But that lack of consensus has nothing to do with the truth of one side.

[Mojlnir]

And I'll add that this only applies to factual debates where one side is wrong. The "debate" over evolution is a perfect example. In that "debate", I want it made clear just how ignorant and/or deceptive the other side is being. If they make false claims, I want there to be zero chance of any observer actually taking them seirously.

 

This argument is an excellent of the "argument of logic" fallacy that I mentioned earlier. Just because the evidence presented is wrong does not mean that the originial position itself is wrong. This also applies to the assault weapons example. Simply put: If I believe in God and present the Bible as proof of my argument the fact the Bible is not the literal word of God does not make my argument false. It only makes my facts false.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying there. It sounded a lot like an argument Dark0ne made (which was exactly the fallacy I claimed) that nobody in a religion debate is right, and that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Your statement about consensus sounded like you were claiming that a lack of consensus has any relevance to the issue of right/wrong.

 

No worries. What I meant was that there are in fact situation were there is a right and a wrong answer. We can't compromise on the number of electrons that circle an atom of oxygen. The answer is specific, if we were to compromise we would no longer be dealing with oxygen but rather some other element. Simply put: An argument can be wrong..I won't argue with you on that.

 

I never said that all arguments for religion are fallacious, although a lot of them are. My point there was that consensus is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. People are sometimes stubborn and will refuse to concede, even when presented with overwhelming evidence. But that lack of consensus has nothing to do with the truth of one side.

 

I think we crossed wires here again. I wasn't arguing the consensus, but rather that it is nearly impossible to invalidate existential arguments such as religion (as an example). Just because the facts are wrong does not create a situation of automatic falsehood for the original position.

[Peregrine]

This argument is an excellent of the "argument of logic" fallacy that I mentioned earlier. Just because the evidence presented is wrong does not mean that the originial position itself is wrong. This also applies to the assault weapons example. Simply put: If I believe in God and present the Bible as proof of my argument the fact the Bible is not the literal word of God does not make my argument false. It only makes my facts false.

 

No, it doesn't prove it absolutely wrong. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, if the facts a position is based on are wrong, the position itself is too. If the position happens to be right, it is by rare coincidence only.

 

An unsupported claim might have some tiny chance of being right, but it's still worthless and entirely inappropriate for a debate.

 

Lets take the position/evidence "the AWB should be continued because it was an effective ban that significantly reduced crime." Now, the counter argument would be:

 

1) The ban had so many loopholes it did nothing but make slight changes in appearance to a few weapons while keeping their function entirely intact.

and

2) Crime rates were unaffected, because the banned weapons were used in within a rounding error of zero percent of crimes, even before the ban.

 

The entire supporting argument has been destroyed, leaving only the initial position. But, this position suddenly looks a lot less reasonable with the facts removed. Many people who would support that position based on the initial claimed "evidence" would change their minds if they knew that the evidence was a lie.

 

Not only that, but the burden of proof is on the side demanding the AWB extension, as it conflicts with the 2nd ammendment. With the failure to meet that burden, their argument is rejected as wrong.

 

=================================

 

Or to look at your other example, the burden of proof is on the side claiming the existence of a god. You have made a claim, and attempted to support it with evidence. If your evidence is proven false, you have failed that burden of proof. Your claim is rejected as wrong until you can find different evidence to support it.

 

Obviously, there is some tiny chance that you might be right by coincidence, that there is in fact a god, but you just picked the wrong argument. But the odds are overwhelmingly against it, and that's close enough to say you are wrong.

[Malchik]

I think we all run the risk of getting the difference between 'evidence' and 'the interpretation of evidence' confused. Many times a debate is not on the evidence but the interpretation of it. I take Peregrine's point that if you can reasonably disprove the evidence being offered that it will discredit arguments put forward on that basis. This does not work if the argument is not about facts but the interpretation thereof.

 

But even when disproving facts it is far better to do calmly. Humiliation of the opposition often increases support for them by making the humiliator appear arrogant and inflexible rather than accurate and logical. This may sound irrational but human beings are irrational.

 

Other things have to be considered too. We present 'facts'. This has been done since time immemorial. Many 'facts' believed to have been proven in the past are now known not to be true. There is absolutely no way we can be sure that some of those 'facts' we state today are not at some stage going to be disproven. This is why care in presentation is important.

 

There was a debate in the UK a couple of days ago entitled 'Zionism today is the worst enemy of the Jews'. Speakers both for and against the motion were Jewish. The motion was carried easily despite a pre-debate poll indicating the sides were tied. Thus the debate has had the effect of making people listen and change views based on the evidence and more particularly the interpretation of the evidence presented to them during the process.

 

So I present the following topic for debate 'As human beings have a built in irrationality factor rational debate is impossible'.

[youBlackEmporer]

The problem with rational debate is that almost all people will never admit that they are wrong, even when presented with every fact that would make a rational person accept their mistake. The problem is as Malchik said, we aren't an entirely rational species, especially when it comes to admitting our faults. We all suffer from inflammed egos to some extent, like Peregrine. However, fortunately for him, he's never had to admit that he was wrong. :wink2:

 

Anyhow, yes I agree, rational debate is impossible/